White House Attacks Fox News

[barfo]

But Obama said we wouldn't if congress passed his stimulus spending bill.

If unemployment goes to 80% are you going to be blaming the economy Obama "inherited?"

More on topic, if unemployment goes to 80% are you going to still be claiming the early 80's were worse?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

More on topic, if unemployment goes to 80% are you going to still be claiming the early 80's were worse?

barfo

I'll be claiming Obama's term started with a better economy than the 80s.

 

[MARIS61]

I'm a bit confused by this. If we abolished the ENTIRE military (DoD is budgeted for $633B next year, including Afghanistan and Iraq contingency "overruns"), we wouldn't have enough to cover the expenditures of just Medicare/Medicaid's $742B (which, according to wiki, only covers 65 and older, or special cases). There isn't extra. Your "facts" are once again figments of your imagination.

I'd like to see how "military presence overseas" accounts for "3/4 of the entire 'defense' community costs". Perhaps our definitions are not the same. But at present, it looks as if, again, you have zero clue what you're talking about in regards to the department of defense.

Even with the President's proposed budget cuts for 2010, the deficit will be 1.17T. Yet, since the entire department of defense takes up $633B, it's a bit tough to say that the "entire overrun" is due to the military-industrial complex.

Would you consider the stimulus an "exception"? You know, the 787 that Bushbaby pushed through in Obama's first months of office? I mean, wait....

So you're quibbling that it would only provide healthcare for tens of millions of our most deserving citizens?

Wow, I see why it's a stupid idea unworthy of consideration.

wiki:

The United States Department of Defense expenditures for fiscal year 2009 are $651.2 billion. This does not take into account military spending outside of the Department of Defense, which when included increases the figure to between $859 billion and $1.16 trillion.

The United States and its closest allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of global military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the vast majority). Department of Defense spending accounts for 21% of the United States' federal budget, and approximately half of its federal discretionary spending, which comprises all of the U.S. government's money not accounted for by pre-existing obligations.[6][3]

However, in terms of per capita spending, the U.S. ranks third behind Israel and Singapore[4].

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US $956,000,000,000.

Keep in mind this is a small piece of the pie when you take into account the related budgets of VA Hospitals bulging at the seams with deranged, disabled, and disrespected dying servicemen, the CIA, and the hundreds of billions of dollars which are routinely diverted each year from other agencies to payroll black operations and other illegal diversions and incursions performed by the military-industrial complex, and the cost of lost lives, rescue operations and rebuilding when our heavy-handed overseas presence is seen as a threat and it provokes terrorist attacks to our homeland.

Our fixation on military might is ultimately a big reason why our health costs are the most ridiculous in the world. It's the main reason our businesses took a collective dive due to high oil costs this decade.

It's as insane as Russia saying they might nuke some countries if they disagree with them.

I'm all for self-defense and defense of our country, but it's a rare case indeed where a smart man/country can't make peace without using force.

The Golden Rule actually works quite well, if and when it is implemented.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So you're quibbling that it would only provide healthcare for tens of millions of our most deserving citizens?

No. As an aside, who are the most deserving?

The United States Department of Defense expenditures for fiscal year 2009 are $651.2 billion. This does not take into account military spending outside of the Department of Defense, which when included increases the figure to between $859 billion and $1.16 trillion.

Let's use your high-end figure of 1.16T for everything having to do with anything military-related in the US budget. Our deficit next year (as budgeted, not necessarily enacted) is 1.17T. So if you got rid of every single dollar spent toward anything remotely military-related, you still have a budget deficit. My point was to counter your contention that the military is the sole reason for the budget deficit.

Department of Defense spending accounts for 21% of the United States' federal budget, and approximately half of its federal discretionary spending, which comprises all of the U.S. government's money not accounted for by pre-existing obligations.[6][3]

However, in terms of per capita spending, the U.S. ranks third behind Israel and Singapore[4].

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US $956,000,000,000.[/I]

Keep in mind this is a small piece of the pie when you take into account the related budgets of VA Hospitals bulging at the seams with deranged, disabled, and disrespected dying servicemen,

As opposed to hospitals with deranged and disabled people who haven't bled for our country? They're getting health care also.

the CIA, and the hundreds of billions of dollars which are routinely diverted each year from other agencies to payroll black operations and other illegal diversions and incursions performed by the military-industrial complex, and the cost of lost lives, rescue operations and rebuilding when our heavy-handed overseas presence is seen as a threat and it provokes terrorist attacks to our homeland.

I can't speak to "hundreds of billions routinely diverted", but that VA stuff falls under DoD and VA spending. It's in there.

Our fixation on military might is ultimately a big reason why our health costs are the most ridiculous in the world. It's the main reason our businesses took a collective dive due to high oil costs this decade.

Can you explain this connection a bit more? I don't get it. I would assume that a bigger reason our health costs are more is that we're among the most obese people in the world, per capita. I don't understand what the military had to do with subprime mortgages or unemployment---two leading causes of the recession. What does the military have to do with high oil costs? If you listen to some people (you among them), the Iraqi military action was only to steal oil, not make it more expensive for everyone and cause our domestic businesses to collectively dive.

It's as insane as Russia saying they might nuke some countries if they disagree with them.I'm all for self-defense and defense of our country, but it's a rare case indeed where a smart man/country can't make peace without using force.The Golden Rule actually works quite well, if and when it is implemented.

It takes two to apply the Golden Rule. In our history, we've generally been the 2nd party into the fight, and usually after the loss of American lives after we thought we'd "made peace without using force".

My original point still stands. If you took every dollar away from the Department of Defense this year, you couldn't pay for Medicaid, much less "health care for everyone with money left over for infrastructure". And I don't think anyone's advocating taking every dollar from the DoD.

 

[barfo]

No. As an aside, who are the most deserving?

Blazer fans. Obviously.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

I don't have time to read this thread (or any off-topic ones, or 2/3 of the basketball ones) so I'll just tell you what the media won't.

The health care plan is free!!! It doesn't cost $800M or whatever they say it does. Costs will rise so much when the baby boomers retire (damn them) that it will cost MORE to not insure all these new people (ER visits, etc.) than it will to insure them!! So it SAVES money.

The same is true of the economic plan!! $800M or whatever the changing amount is? It's almost all LOANS. The only money that won't be returned is from the 2% of companies that will go under. But without the economic plan, most of them will, and banks will be out the debt that already exists, and people will lose their savings or the government will cover it--either way we won't get the money back, whereas by loaning companies supervised money to get them out of problems, the taxpayers will get it back. It's almost all LOANS, not grants.

Both the health plan and the economic plan are free!! Yeeehawwww!!!!!!!

 

[MrJayremmie]

Don't want to bring this thread up again, but I found something interesting this morning.

 

[Shooter]

Even Democrats are admitting that it's stupid to attack Fox News and The Chamber of Commerce:

“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”

. . . “There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28638.html

 

[Shooter]

 

[MrJayremmie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_fox_apology

Fox and the White House talk...

Meanwhile, Fox received support Wednesday from an unlikely source: CNN's prime-time host Campbell Brown. She interviewed Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett and asked whether the White House considered left-leaning MSNBC biased as well. Jarrett wouldn't speak about the network.

She "seems loathe to admit that MSNBC has a bias," Brown said. "And that is where I think the White House loses all credibility on this issue."

If the White House wants to talk about bias in the media, officials "should elevate the conversation and talk about bias on the right and on the left," Brown said. "Because when you just target one side, you reveal your own bias — that you are only critical of those who are critical of you."

I still don't see how anyone thinks CNN is near as bias. You would NEVER EVER EVER hear Fox say that to the Bush administration when they called out MSNBC. No contest here.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_fox_apology

Fox and the White House talk...



I still don't see how anyone thinks CNN is near as bias. You would NEVER EVER EVER hear Fox say that to the Bush administration when they called out MSNBC. No contest here.

Every news outlet rallied around Fox. It's a very bad thing for the executive branch or congress to intimidate the press in this fashion.

It's one thing to not book appearances on the network, it's another to try to tell us all what's a news outlet and what's not.

Where I see bias is in who the guests are and what news they tout.

I see top officials from the Clinton administration as pundits and republicans I've never heard of. One example.

Or during the Iraq war, lots of ex-generals who opposed the war, and nobody who was simply telling us what the strategy was. I'd think that's why you'd bring on a general or colonel type.

When they talk about balloon boy all day and all night for 4-5 days while congress is passing the health care legislation sure seems like a distraction. A wanted distraction by those who want to foist "something" on us so they can claim credit for "something more." Or a distraction from the administration admitting that the stimulus and bloated spending has done little for the economy and forecasts are terrible for 2010 (jobs-wise). Or to distract from this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0/29/AR2009102904597.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

Dozens in Congress under ethics inquiry
AN ACCIDENTAL DISCLOSURE
Document was found on file-sharing network
By Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 30, 2009

House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.

The report appears to have been inadvertently placed on a publicly accessible computer network, and it was provided to The Washington Post by a source not connected to the congressional investigations. The committee said Thursday night that the document was released by a low-level staffer.

The ethics committee is one of the most secretive panels in Congress, and its members and staff members sign oaths not to disclose any activities related to its past or present investigations. Watchdog groups have accused the committee of not actively pursuing inquiries; the newly disclosed document indicates the panel is conducting far more investigations than it had revealed.

Shortly after 6 p.m. Thursday, the committee chairman, Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), interrupted a series of House votes to alert lawmakers about the breach. She cautioned that some of the panel's activities are preliminary and not a conclusive sign of inappropriate behavior.

"No inference should be made as to any member," she said.

Rep. Jo Bonner (Ala.), the committee's ranking Republican, said the breach was an isolated incident.

The 22-page "Committee on Standards Weekly Summary Report" gives brief summaries of ethics panel investigations of the conduct of 19 lawmakers and a few staff members. It also outlines the work of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, a quasi-independent body that initiates investigations and provides recommendations to the ethics committee. The document indicated that the office was reviewing the activities of 14 other lawmakers. Some were under review by both ethics bodies.

A broader inquiry
Ethics committee investigations are not uncommon. Most result in private letters that either exonerate or reprimand a member. In some rare instances, the censure is more severe.

Many of the broad outlines of the cases cited in the July document are known -- the committee announced over the summer that it was reviewing lawmakers with connections to the now-closed PMA Group, a lobbying firm. But the document indicates that the inquiry was broader than initially believed. It included a review of seven lawmakers on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee who have steered federal money to the firm's clients and have also received large campaign contributions.

The document also disclosed that:

-- Ethics committee staff members have interviewed House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) about one element of the complex investigation of his personal finances, as well as the lawmaker's top aide and his son. Rangel said he spoke with ethics committee staff members regarding a conference that he and four other members of the Congressional Black Caucus attended last November in St. Martin. The trip initially was said to be sponsored by a nonprofit foundation run by a newspaper. But the three-day event, at a luxury resort, was underwritten by major corporations such as Citigroup, Pfizer and AT&T. Rules passed in 2007, shortly after Democrats reclaimed the majority following a wave of corruption cases against Republicans, bar private companies from paying for congressional travel.

Rangel said he has not discussed other parts of the investigation of his finances with the committee. "I'm waiting for that, anxiously," he said.

-- The Justice Department has told the ethics panel to suspend a probe of Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), whose personal finances federal investigators began reviewing in early 2006 after complaints from a conservative group that he was not fully revealing his real estate holdings. There has been no public action on that inquiry for several years. But the department's request in early July to the committee suggests that the case continues to draw the attention of federal investigators, who often ask that the House and Senate ethics panels refrain from taking action against members whom the department is already investigating.

Mollohan said that he was not aware of any ongoing interest by the Justice Department in his case and that he and his attorneys have not heard from federal investigators. "The answer is no," he said.

-- The committee on June 9 authorized issuance of subpoenas to the Justice Department, the National Security Agency and the FBI for "certain intercepted communications" regarding Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). As was reported earlier this year, Harman was heard in a 2005 conversation agreeing to an Israeli operative's request to try to obtain leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists in exchange for the agent's help in lobbying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to name her chairman of the intelligence committee. The department, a former U.S. official said, declined to respond to the subpoena.

Harman said that the ethics committee has not contacted her and that she has no knowledge that the subpoena was ever issued. "I don't believe that's true," she said. "As far as I'm concerned, this smear has been over for three years."

In June 2009, a Justice Department official wrote in a letter to an attorney for Harman that she was "neither a subject nor a target" of a criminal investigation.

Because of the secretive nature of the ethics committee, it was difficult to assess the current status of the investigations cited in the July document. The panel said Thursday, however, that it is ending a probe of Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) after finding no ethical violations, and that it is investigating the financial connections of two California Democrats.

The committee did not detail the two newly disclosed investigations. However, according to the July document, Rep. Maxine Waters, a high-ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, came under scrutiny because of activities involving OneUnited Bank of Massachusetts, in which her husband owns at least $250,000 in stock.

Waters arranged a September 2008 meeting at the Treasury Department where OneUnited executives asked for government money. In December, Treasury selected OneUnited as an early participant in the bank bailout program, injecting $12.1 million.

The other, Rep. Laura Richardson, may have failed to mention property, income and liabilities on financial disclosure forms.

File-sharing
The committee's review of investigations became available on file-sharing networks because of a junior staff member's use of the software while working from home, Lofgren and Bonner said in a statement issued Thursday night. The staffer was fired, a congressional aide said.

The committee "is taking all appropriate steps to deal with this issue," they said, noting that neither the committee nor the House's information systems were breached in any way.

"Peer-to-peer" technology has previously caused inadvertent breaches of sensitive financial, defense-related and personal data from government and commercial networks, and it is prohibited on House networks.

House administration rules require that if a lawmaker or staff member takes work home, "all users of House sensitive information must protect the confidentiality of sensitive information" from unauthorized disclosure.

Leo Wise, chief counsel for the Office of Congressional Ethics, declined to comment, citing office policy against confirming or denying the existence of investigations. A Justice Department spokeswoman also declined to comment, citing a similar policy.

Staff writers Carol D. Leonnig and Joby Warrick and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Every news outlet rallied around Fox.

Did Fox rally around MSNBC when Bush went after them?

 

[Denny Crane]

Did Fox rally around MSNBC when Bush went after them?

I don't remember Bush going after any network like this white house is going after Fox.

There's always been politicians bashing the "media" as a whole, and the media doing "gotcha" journalism against politicians.

Some reporter may get under the skin of a politican and get F-bombed in return.

This is a very different thing. The administration appointed one of those famous czars to take out a cable news organization that doesn't air stories they want to see.

 

[MrJayremmie]

I don't remember Bush going after any network like this white house is going after Fox.

There's always been politicians bashing the "media" as a whole, and the media doing "gotcha" journalism against politicians.

Some reporter may get under the skin of a politican and get F-bombed in return.

This is a very different thing. The administration appointed one of those famous czars to take out a cable news organization that doesn't air stories they want to see.

The Bush administration specifically went after (ms)NBC. Calling out their "bias" and them not correcting things that are "flat out wrong" and so on and so forth.

[video=youtube;sJboVwW4T54]

Watch this one especially at 1:50 and 2:30 and 2:55 and so... its quite obvious and hypocritical.

 

[maxiep]

The Bush administration specifically went after (ms)NBC. Calling out their "bias" and them not correcting things that are "flat out wrong" and so on and so forth.



Watch this one especially at 1:50 and 2:30 and 2:55 and so... its quite obvious and hypocritical.

You let me know when the Bush Administration refused to schedule any Administration members to appear on either MSNBC or NBC and also calling them "not a legitimate news organization". You can't. Why? It didn't happen.

Every Administration runs into reporters/networks whose coverage they don't like. President Reagan had Helen Thomas and Sam Donaldson. ABC went after President Clinton a bit. It is unprecidented in modern times for a major news organization to be frozen out. And frankly, it speaks to the Obama Administration's own insecurity. They can't handle when negative things said about them.

Personally, I love watching networks and reading sources that are critical/skeptical of the sitting administration. During the Bush Administration, I used to watch more CNN and MSNBC. These days, I watch more FOX. I read enough to know propoganda from either side when I see.

In the future, I'd suggest to you that you read editorials/watch videos that do more than confirm your worldview. Challenge yourself. Discover your First Principles. Create a heirarchy of your Platonic forms. Decide not only what you believe in, but why. Until then, you're nothing more than Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity.

 

[MrJayremmie]

In the future, I'd suggest to you that you read editorials/watch videos that do more than confirm your worldview. Challenge yourself. Discover your First Principles. Create a heirarchy of your Platonic forms. Decide not only what you believe in, but why. Until then, you're nothing more than Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity.

You seriously have issues. Why do you think I never respond to any post you ever make? You always turn it into something personal with everyone you talk to. Its like you can't argue against something someone says, but have to bring them into it.

You know nothing about me or probably anyone in this place. Its the same thing with you making fun of Eric's problem. Just chill out.

Every post you make I disregard, because its BS. You can be intelligent when you talk about the issues, but then you are just laughable when you think that you know ANYTHING about me or anyone else.

Stick to talking about the thread topic and not about me. Thanks.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Anyway, Denny, I also found a Bush counselor talk about NBC.

From ThinkProgress (bias)

Gillespie: ‘It Is Beyond Me’ Why Republicans Won’t Boycott NBC

Yesterday, Bush counselor Ed Gillespie sent an angry letter to NBC president Steve Capus demanding that the network run a correction for what he called the network’s “selective editing” of an interview with President Bush. NBC pointed out that the full interview “has been available, unedited, in its entirety, for the past day, on our website.”

Gillespie — and the rest of the right wing — was not mollified. Appearing on Glenn Beck’s radio show today, Gillespie continued to attack NBC. When Beck asked why conservatives continue to appear on the network, Gillespie replied, “It is beyond me frankly”:

BECK: While their [Fox News's] journalists clearly or their commentators are clearly conservative, nobody in Washington is trying to — the Democrats are trying to blackball Fox by not going on any debates, et cetera, et cetera. You don’t see Republicans doing that to NBC, do you?

GILLESPIE: No, and sometimes I question why. It is beyond me frankly.

Gillespie’s attack seems nothing more than part of a coordinated right-wing smear against NBC — considering that the White House has misleadingly edited news reports itself. For example, in an effort to portray the surge as a success last November, the White House removed references about the lack of political progress in Iraq from an ABC News segment and distributed the edited version of the report “to government officials, Congressional staffers,” and journalists. Only after ABC complained, the White House “acknowledged it was inappropriate” and sent a revised version.

It is ironic that an administration that has planted false news stories at home and abroad — and set up a secret program to use supposedly independent military officials as Pentagon spokesmen — is now outraged over “the blurring of the lines” between news and spin.

Some of his letter...

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.
...
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002275/

Here is him on Beck's show a while ago. Beck doesn't seem so distressed over this. Wonder why? "If they are doing it to us, they will come after YOU next!" Right Beck?

 

[MrJayremmie]

As for calling them a non-news organization, I think its silly for the Admin. to engage in that. They are (for the most part) a news organization during their news broadcast, though they lean much more to the right minus Shepard Smith.

But their "news" organizations have been assholes to the Obama administration. From calling his fist pump w/ his wife a "terrorist fist jab" to calling Michelle "Obama's baby's Mama" and blaming Obama for the rappers language after he won the election. And of course many other things which I won't get in to. But those were all on their "news" programs.

But if i'm correct, wasn't it mainly Obama's people that called Fox out directly by saying they aren't a news organization and that they are an arm of the right-wing? I know Obama has mentioned Fox being dedicated to attacking him and his admin., but has he said more than that? (honest question if someone could give me a link -- I know subtly called them more of a talk radio station in a passive aggressive tone)

And as for boycotting... I agree its childish, but he has been on Fox before. I'm sure he is just playing to his base right now. The same thing Bush did in calling out NBC. Oh, and the SAME THING THE BUSH ADMIN. DID AT THE END OF THEIR ADMINISTRATION. They froze out MSNBC, FYI.

NBC does have a popular show called "Morning Joe" with Joe Scarborough... a conservative. He is a very cool republican. One i'd vote for if he ran for office. Definitely not a neo-con like the ones over at Faux.

Edit -

And Obama does/has met with plenty of Conservative hosts from TV to radio and newspaper. It seems he doesn't have a problem with the right wing, and isn't "Insecure" as I've heard him called. He has called on Fox reporters at press conferences as well, but definitely much less than he should be.

Thanks.

 

[maxiep]

You seriously have issues. Why do you think I never respond to any post you ever make? You always turn it into something personal with everyone you talk to. Its like you can't argue against something someone says, but have to bring them into it.

You know nothing about me or probably anyone in this place. Its the same thing with you making fun of Eric's problem. Just chill out.

Every post you make I disregard, because its BS. You can be intelligent when you talk about the issues, but then you are just laughable when you think that you know ANYTHING about me or anyone else.

Stick to talking about the thread topic and not about me. Thanks.

Yep. It's much easier to dismiss ideas that conflict with your conclusion than to address them.

 

[maxiep]

Anyway, Denny, I also found a Bush counselor talk about NBC.

From ThinkProgress (bias)



Some of his letter...



http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002275/

Here is him on Beck's show a while ago. Beck doesn't seem so distressed over this. Wonder why? "If they are doing it to us, they will come after YOU next!" Right Beck?

The difference is, of course, that the Bush Administration didn't boycott them or say they weren't a news organization.

 

[MrJayremmie]

The difference is, of course, that the Bush Administration didn't boycott them or say they weren't a news organization.

Toward the end of the administration they did freeze out MSNBC.

And the counselor's letter said...

Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines.

So I don't see the right-wing argument as valid.

 

[maxiep]

Toward the end of the administration they did freeze out MSNBC.

And the counselor's letter said...



So I don't see the right-wing argument as valid.

Really? There wasn't an Administration offical on ANY MSNBC broadcast? That's simply not true. I watched a lot of MSNBC during the election and during the transition. I can assure you, MSNBC wasn't banished.

David Schuster was considered part of the news, not opinion. When he hosted "Race For The White House", he sounded like Keith Olbermann. Note the decline of MSNBC once Tim Russert passed. They really lost their way after his death.

BTW, where's the part where the Bush Administration said NBC and MSNBC wasn't a legitimate news organization?

 

[Denny Crane]

Anyway, Denny, I also found a Bush counselor talk about NBC.

From ThinkProgress (bias)



Some of his letter...



http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002275/

Here is him on Beck's show a while ago. Beck doesn't seem so distressed over this. Wonder why? "If they are doing it to us, they will come after YOU next!" Right Beck?

Hrm...

So one white house says, "We want MSNBC to show some clip of a speech with more context," they're going after them?

That kind of stuff is as old as the republic. I mean the days when buddies of Thomas Jefferson who ran the newspapers produced a steady stream of negative opinion pieces and reporting about John Adams.

The comments about blurring the lines between news and opinion on all the NBC networks was accurate. Specifically because MSNBC had Chris Matthews and Olbermann acting as news anchors for the various democratic primaries and the convention, and their news guys interviewed and offering opinion. It would be like Fox having O'Reilly anchor the nightly news or Chris Wallace (or Shepard Smith) hosting O'Reilly's show. Note: fox doesn't do those things because it actually is proper journalistic standards.

In fact, the actual NBC News people were pretty upset about what MSNBC and NBC were doing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.

Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

...

In interviews, 10 current and former staff members said that long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. “MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict,” one senior staff member observed. “They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week.”

The employee, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because the network does not permit its people to speak to the media without authorization. (The New York Times and NBC News have a content-sharing arrangement exclusively for political coverage.)

And the NYTimes continues and pretty much says the same things I've been posting here:

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of “Hardball,” began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair’s “SportsCenter”-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

But in the past two weeks, that line has been blurred. On the final night of the Republican convention, after MSNBC televised the party’s video “tribute to the victims of 9/11,” including graphic footage of the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Olbermann abruptly took off his journalistic hat.

 

[maxiep]

An interesting article by John Harwood regarding media bias: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/us/politics/02caucus.html?ref=todayspaper